Contributor Page
Aitken Klee
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 613 6955858​​
Fax: +1 613 6955854​
100 Queen Street, Suite 300
Ontario K1P 1J9
Most Reader Response
By Devin Doyle
In 907687 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. International Institute of Travel) v. Shokour, 2017 FC 969, the Federal Court found that the plaintiff did not meet its burden of establishing copyright infringement ...
By Sean Jackson
On November 15, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its Reasons for Judgment in an appeal from an order that (1) granted the respondent's motion for security for costs ...
By Sandra Marone
In Rowland v. Stephen, Justice Petersen struck Mr. Rowland's statement of claim and denied his leave to amend on the basis that Mr. Rowland, having assigned the full and exclusive rights to his invention ...
By Lilly Sormaz
There was no evidence that it was so capable. It appears that the Board assumed that one merely had to dilute the 0.3% medicine to arrive at the 0.1% medicine capable of performing the same function.
By Devin Doyle
In Les Marques Metro / Metro Brands S.E.N.C. v. 1161396 Ontario Inc., 2017 FC 806, Metro appealed a Trade-marks Opposition Board decision which allowed S&M Enterprises' registration...
By Scott Beeser
On September 18, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in BMS' appeal of a decision dismissing its prohibition application in respect of dasatinib and Canadian Patent Nos. 2,366,932 and 2,519,898.
By Sean Jackson
On August 29, 2017 Apotex filed a motion with the Supreme Court of Canada, requesting a rehearing of the appeal and an amendment of the corresponding judgment in which the Supreme Court held that the promise doctrine is not the appropriate standard for assessing utility and that AstraZeneca's 653 Patent is valid (2017 SCC 36;
By Scott Beeser
U Box It opposed these application on the basis of confusion.
By Aleem Abdulla
In the continuing saga between broadcasters and set-top boxes, the Federal Court of Appeal handed a group of Canadian broadcasters a temporary victory in their fight against TVAddons.
By Sean Jackson
On October 6, 2016, Justice Roy granted Camso's motion to stay the re-examination of Camso's 562 Patent until final judgment is rendered in an action in which the validity of the 562 Patent is being challenged ...
By Scott Beeser
On June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment in AstraZeneca v. Apotex, a case dealing with the utility requirements under the Canadian Patent Act.
By Scott Beeser
In Google v. Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada today upheld a worldwide interlocutory injunction requiring Google to delist certain webpages from its search results.
By Jonathan Giraldi
In Mostar Directional Technologies Inc. v. Drill-Tek Corporation and Drill-Tek MWD Services Ltd., Mostar claimed patent infringement and inducement.
By Devin Doyle
Back in 2014, the Federal Court issued its judgment in Teva's section 8 damages action in relation to the drug venlafaxine.
By Sean Jackson
Sections 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act allow copyright owners to send notices of infringed copyright to ISPs, such as Rogers.